Those who advocate for OA with CC BY argue that there is no reason for authors to object to it: scholars and scientists (the argument goes) have already been paid for the work they’re writing up, and since they have little if any expectation that their writings will generate additional revenue for them, why not make their work freely available to those who may be able to find ways to add value to them through reuse and “remixing,” and maybe even to profit from doing so? In any case (the argument continues), authors retain their copyright under a CC license, so what’s the problem?
The problem, for many authors, is that their copyright becomes effectively meaningless when they have given away all of the prerogatives over their work that copyright provides.
From Mandatory open-access publishing can impair academic freedom (essay) | Inside Higher Ed
Yes but not but yes but no
The main reason for CC-BY and that it being in EuroPMC they can strip out and analyse the metadata and get the benefits from doing that.
This is not possible under the other licenses and in fact it would just depreciate the work that the original funders can do with their work (don’t forget that the work belongs to the funder, not the scientist in the cases mentioned) and other people such as business would be able to play around with it and make money out of the (often) publiclly funded work.
The main problem with CC-BY is that we are paying the likes of Elsevier around 2000 euros a paper for Gold OA and they don’t pay us for providing their content!